Re: [Patch] Qualify standard functions with std:: in stl_algo.h

[Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at unitus dot it>]

Nathan Myers wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 10:57:25PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>  
>
> > this is another bit of the work you envisaged a while ago
> > (about 6 months)...
> >    
> Wow, thanks Paolo!  This had long vexed me.  I wonder, though
> if they shouldn't say "::std::" instead.  Anyway this is better
> than before, and switching to "::std::" later would not break 
> binary compatibility -- at least not with any correct program!
Well, if we all agree that '::std::' is better, it's very easy for me to 
do the change: it's just a single search/replace.

> > Very boring but for one thing: ordering becomes important and
> > I had to declare 'merge' (both versions) and 'partial sort'
> > in advance. Is this ok/expected? I'm not sure that reshuffling
> > is even possible and adding a full set of declarations seems
> > overkilling...
> >    
> Duplication is the problem.  Usually we prefer to add another header 
> under bits/ and include it wherever the names are needed, assuming
> that you can't just sub-include the whole header where the names are
> rightfully declared.  (An example where this would be impossible is
> when it introduces a circular dependency; see HEADER_POLICY.)  Also,
> if a header is to be sub-included, it's always worth checking if it
> suffices to include it in the .tcc file only.  Finally, (also re:
> HEADER_POLICY) sub-includes should never name the "official" header
> (e.g. <algorithm>) they should name the internal name (e.g.
> <std/std_algorithm.h>).
>
> I suppose we could verify coverage by sub-including it in another 
> namespace, something like
>
>  #include <algorithm>
>  namespace dummy {
>  #  include <iterator>
>  }
>
> but then you would have to instantiate them all, too.
Hummm. So, sorry for appearing even more simple minded than I am (late 
at night ;) : for the case at hand what are you really suggesting?

> By the way, when you touch all or most of the objects in a header, 
> you don't have to name them all in the change log.  Just say "lots".
> The point of mentioning the file and object is so somebody reading
> has an answer to the question, "what changed?".  To know what to put 
> there, imagine yourself reading the changelog, looking for a hint of
> which change broke your program.
Hummm(2). In this case (guessing) I touched more or less 2/3 of the 
functions and I believed we always had to document which specific 
functions underwent change: seems more useful if you have to reconstruct 
exactly  when something went wrong.

Paolo.